I just bought a medium format film camera, a Mamiya RB67 Pro S, for $150.00. The time is right for getting into medium format film. Lenses are around $80+$150 and whole systems can be had for less than $300.

This camera went for over $1000 when new.

You can also pick up whole darkroom setups for pennies.

I have an RB67 and it was my prime camera for a long time. While heavy it along with a 127 mm lens has been pack packed all over the Rocky mountains - winter and summer and all over the Appalachian mountains. Heavy but not near has heavy and bulky as a 4x5 ;-). The nice thing about the RB is the lens shutter. You can compose, then raise the mirror and trip the lens shutter with a cable. That allowed me to use a fairly light weight tripod when I had it in my pack since there was no vibration from the mirror and shutter.

Enjoy.

-- hide signature --

Trumanwww.pbase.com/tprevatt

Yeah, I can't wait to start running some film through it! Only problem is, with all the flooding, I can't get to any of my favorite local areas in the mountains.

This will be my first time developing film too. It is going to be a lot of fun!

Spent yesterday cleaning off all the old light seals and replacing them. Looking through that waist level finder is a whole new experience, and in itself, made getting this camera worth it. Can't stop looking through it.

Original concept inspired by the MF digital back has been tested out more than 8 years ago - at the time no el cheapo ebay film scanners - not too mention cheap 120 film scanner!

Even now it is hard to beat a flatbed Epson scanner images from a 6x9 or 6x12 transparency for my own purpose. Cameras are Zeiss Super Ikonta C & Converted Polaroid 110A with all manual adjusted setting. It is a hobby.

My recent photographs and videos were taken by digital compacts, superzoom, camcorders and occasionally DSLR.

New adventure - having used a Fuji Instant 4x5 film on my Rolleiflex 6008 and discovered that a colour negative apart from the instant print could be retrieved by bleaching the emulsion; bought a few Polaroids to use the Fuji instant 4x5. Some needed to be modified for the obsolete batteries. Alls well, will test the scanning of the colour negatives on the flatbed again!

Am shooting more film now than 10 years ago. Started with reading about the Impossible Project. I dug up a couple of Polaroid SLRs I've had in the closet. Then graduated to a Hasselblad system and last week bought a Yashica TLR. I've noticed used prices for film cameras are really starting to climb, but are still a bargain. Hope the people who make and sell film are seeing the same surge.

It is definitely right, prices for good old film cameras were steadly crawling up. It maybe moving towards the trend of LP versus CD.

I have a few Polaroid SX70 SLRs, 600, 1000 etc using Impossible instant prints. One limitation I found was the mooted pastel colours for the first release "Old Shade". It provided a limited use. The latest new "Color Protection" had improved - however not to the same vibrance as the old glory Polaroid in the past.

Now I bought a few old Polaroid Instant 100 , 430, EE100 etc. using Fuji Instant Color Prints FP100C (readily available) to try out. In my opinion, the Impossible is not in the same league as the Fujis.

Fogsville, that's one of the most well thought and well written replies I've ever seen on DP review.

Thanks for that!

And yes, I fully agree on all levels.

The only thing I'd like to add is that modern digital cinema cameras (Alexa, RED, Genesis, F65) are so good that we are not able anymore to spot that "digital" look on movies captured with these cameras.

If you watch carefully movies like Skyfall, Oblivion or Prometheus, it's impossible to tell them apart from those made with film stock.

No burnt highlights, no digital looking noise, not a single trace of artfacts on screen. It's simply as organic as a film capture.

Movie DPs are saying they're choosing more and more digital capture for the sake of convinience.

I don't believe so.

I think they're choosing digital because it's d@rn good, as good as film stock in quality terms, and with added flexibility.

It's true that some cinematographers are particularly enthusiastic about what's possible with digital capture in principal photography. Stephen Soderbergh has been advocating RED from the start, and I know Roger Deakins has been very enthusiastic about the ARRI Alexa--which he put to wonderful work with "Skyfall."

But, (based on what I've read from them, anyway) I don't get the sense that either regards the digital work they do as comparable to what other people accomplish with film. In other words: both shoot digitally because they're exploring new aesthetic and workflow possibilities, not because they want a result that "looks like film." They're innovating, and we get gorgeous results like "Skyfall" for it. Roger Deakins has talked quite a bit about how digital (the Alexa, specifically) is capable of a kind of verisimilitude that he hadn't seen with Vision 3 stocks. But in doing so, he's not advocating that every movie ever made should employ that look, or that the look is "better" than what's possible with film stock. "Better" for "Skyfall," sure, absolutely. But "better" for "The Dark Knight Rises?" Obviously not.

Just reading around on what the various big names have to say about how they shoot--from Wally Pfister to Janusz Kaminsky to Deakins--I get the sense that cinematographers prefer *choice* over any allegiance to any specific technology, and that they're all troubled by the way in which other interests (studio financiers, the companies making the technology, etc.) posit digital as "progress" or a "replacement" for film. Film isn't going away because cinematographers want it to, or because they "prefer" digital. It's going away because Hollywood is a business and executive producers are bean counters, not aestheticians. By and large, cinematographers don't think that digital looks like film. And they don't necessarily want to it to. They want to be able to use either or both!

Martin Scorsese has talked very thoughtfully about the change--it's worth googling some of the interviews he gave after the release of "Hugo," which he shot with the ARRI Alexa. Essentially: he'd much rather have shot it with film, but he's convinced that by the time he's doing principal photography for his next picture, it won't a choice. So he shot *Hugo* digitally to dive in and figure it out, even though the look (and the workflow to get it) ended up not being exactly what he would have preferred.

What I'm getting at, here, is that you say movies like "Skyfall" and "Prometheus" are indistinguishable from those shot with Kodak Vision 3, but I disagree with you--and the folks who made them disagree with you, too!

And it's the idea that digital "replaces" film--that they "should be" indistinguishable--that will leave us all very much poorer for the comparison. As someone who loves great cinematography, >I< want these artists to have choices! If Janusz Kaminsky and Wally Pfister and Paul Thomas Anderson and Rian Johnson want to shoot film, >I< want them to have it to shoot! I *loved* the way "Lincoln" and "War Horse" looked. I *loved* the way "The Dark Knight Rises" looked. I *loved* the way "The Master" and "There Will be Blood" looked. These guys are in the prime of their careers; they're not old-timers who can't broker change. Digital is reasonable choice, but they *aren't* choosing it. Since I respect what they're cranking out, I hope they can continue to make what they make on their own terms.

If you love movies, you *don't* want film to die. You want artists to have choices. Lots and lots of choices.

M.

marcio_napoli wrote:

Fogsville, that's one of the most well thought and well written replies I've ever seen on DP review.

Thanks for that!

And yes, I fully agree on all levels.

The only thing I'd like to add is that modern digital cinema cameras (Alexa, RED, Genesis, F65) are so good that we are not able anymore to spot that "digital" look on movies captured with these cameras.

If you watch carefully movies like Skyfall, Oblivion or Prometheus, it's impossible to tell them apart from those made with film stock.

No burnt highlights, no digital looking noise, not a single trace of artfacts on screen. It's simply as organic as a film capture.

Movie DPs are saying they're choosing more and more digital capture for the sake of convinience.

I don't believe so.

I think they're choosing digital because it's d@rn good, as good as film stock in quality terms, and with added flexibility.

It's true that some cinematographers are particularly enthusiastic about what's possible with digital capture in principal photography. Stephen Soderbergh has been advocating RED from the start, and I know Roger Deakins has been very enthusiastic about the ARRI Alexa--which he put to wonderful work with "Skyfall."

(snipped for brevity...)

Very good post and I agree.

There's also a reason why lots of TV productions use film (Breaking Bad as one good current example.)

A worthwhile documentary is Keanu Reeves' and Christopher Kenneally's Side by Side. It attempts to explore the changing technologies from both sides of the aisle. But as you mentioned, film makers primarily see the options as part of the 'big tool box' and not simply as 'one versus the other.' And aesthetic choices do matter.

I like what John de Borman (The Full Monty) said in this short interview about decisions involving film or digital options for a project: John de Borman

And thanks Marcio, for your kind words. If you get a chance you might want to try to see the 'behind the scenes' making of Ron Howard's Rush. There is interesting discussion about why they used digital capture and the new opportunities it opened up. But not because it might emulate a film aesthetic, but because of logistics and being able to capture certain scenes that very small digital capture devices allowed. Anthony Dod Mantle (DP) was incredibly inventive filming Rush.

I just bought a medium format film camera, a Mamiya RB67 Pro S, for $150.00. The time is right for getting into medium format film. Lenses are around $80+$150 and whole systems can be had for less than $300.

This camera went for over $1000 when new.

You can also pick up whole darkroom setups for pennies.

I have an RB67 and it was my prime camera for a long time. While heavy it along with a 127 mm lens has been pack packed all over the Rocky mountains - winter and summer and all over the Appalachian mountains. Heavy but not near has heavy and bulky as a 4x5 ;-). The nice thing about the RB is the lens shutter. You can compose, then raise the mirror and trip the lens shutter with a cable. That allowed me to use a fairly light weight tripod when I had it in my pack since there was no vibration from the mirror and shutter.

Enjoy.

-- hide signature --

Trumanwww.pbase.com/tprevatt

Yeah, I can't wait to start running some film through it! Only problem is, with all the flooding, I can't get to any of my favorite local areas in the mountains.

This will be my first time developing film too. It is going to be a lot of fun!

Spent yesterday cleaning off all the old light seals and replacing them. Looking through that waist level finder is a whole new experience, and in itself, made getting this camera worth it. Can't stop looking through it.

Great going, I used to shoot with a friend who used the same camera only he used the 180 lens and a 90, you're in for a treat wait till you shoot some slides and look at those "puppies" on a light box! you might just want to wear sunglasses, that big slide and that light WOW! I have a secret desire for a Hasselblad and a 50 lens, maybe someday, thanks for the pic, and enjoy.

...you're in for a treat wait till you shoot some slides and look at those "puppies" on a light box! you might just want to wear sunglasses, that big slide and that light WOW!

I use reversal film almost exclusively in 4x5 and 8x10 sheet sizes. I agree that reversal film is quite luscious (when exposed correctly and color balanced correctly.) It's unfortunate (for me) that 8x10 is so expensive and also that E-6 film is now disappearing. Yes, it's amazing stuff to look at on a light box. I once had an exhibition that included five 8x10 transparencies mounted on the wall on battery operated 5000K lightbox style wooden frames. Not quite to the scale of Jeff Wall's famous and gigantic 'lightbox prints' but effective nonetheless. Jeff Wall Museo interview

Am shooting more film now than 10 years ago. Started with reading about the Impossible Project. I dug up a couple of Polaroid SLRs I've had in the closet. Then graduated to a Hasselblad system and last week bought a Yashica TLR. I've noticed used prices for film cameras are really starting to climb, but are still a bargain. Hope the people who make and sell film are seeing the same surge.

I think there is an upswing in film. Ilford just recently opened a processing lab in the US. What the decline in Kodak has I think done is make Ilford the primary producer of B&W films and Fuji the primary producers of color films. Back when I was teaching photography (on the side) we did not allow the new students to use their own cameras. You should have heard them squeal - like stuck pigs. We checked out a Yashica TLR to each and that is the camera they used for the entire beginner course.

That cut our the brags about my camera is better than yours, this lens is the best and made them concentrate on producing good images from the tools they had. The TLR is actually a great camera to learn on.

I shoot film quite a bit still... I shoot a lot of 35mm, occasionally 120 and sometimes I shoot instant film: Fuji FP-100 or FP-3000 I have quite a few film cameras that I enjoy using.

The bad news I learned about the other day was a result of dropping off several rolls of color 35mm @ my local Costco. The technician behind the counter told me that Costco will no longer develop 35mm film in 2014.

I shoot film quite a bit still... I shoot a lot of 35mm, occasionally 120 and sometimes I shoot instant film: Fuji FP-100 or FP-3000 I have quite a few film cameras that I enjoy using.

The bad news I learned about the other day was a result of dropping off several rolls of color 35mm @ my local Costco. The technician behind the counter told me that Costco will no longer develop 35mm film in 2014.

FYI for all analog lovers out there....

Maybe you could try to develop b/w film at home. It makes a lot of fun and I find it also relaxing (making prints in the dark room).

The models with whom I work all find the look of film--particularly negative/C41 film--very flattering. So I shoot it whenever conditions make it possible! I'm a particular fan of the (relatively) new Kodak Portra 160's tone and texture:

I shot all of these with a Nikon F100 and a 60mm f/2.8G, at f/2.8. I rated the film at box speed (ISO 160). Process and Noritsu scan by Richard Photo Lab in Hollywood. No edits or retouch on my end necessary beyond re-sizing for publication.

The experts out there tell me that tone and texture like this (if it's what you want) are both possible and even easy with digital, but I've always found the post-processing business of trying to achieve it to be deeply tedious--I'd rather just be out there shooting more film instead.

Cheers!

M.

Beautiful photos and model. No matter what we use to get a look its all about the end result.